Re: I am done

Tom Lane wrote:
> Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > Since the flawed code is now in beta, it will need to be fixed. Do people
> > like the above solution or should I just revert to having a seperate
> > function for each GUC variable affected?
>
> I do not see a good reason why "fatal" and "off" shouldn't be allowed
> values for all three message variables. If we just did that, then you'd
> be back to sharable code.

I recommended he only allow valid values for each variable. I think if
we say we only support values X,Y,Z we had better throw an error if it
anything else.

> BTW, is it a good idea for server_min_messages and
> log_min_error_statement to be PGC_USERSET? I could see an argument that
> they should be PGC_SIGHUP, ie, settable only by the admin. As it is,
> any user can hide his activity from the logs. OTOH, in the past we've
> allowed anyone to change the debug level, and there haven't been
> complaints about it.
>
> There's some value in being able to kick the log level up a notch for
> a specific session, but knocking it down from the admin's default could
> be considered a bad thing. I suppose we could invent a PGC_SIGHUP
> "min_server_min_messages" variable that sets a minimum value below which
> the user can't set server_min_messages. Does that seem like a good
> idea, or overkill?

Seems a new GUC variable seems like overkill to me, and I think we need
to allow it to be raised. I think we can make server_min_messages
PGC_SUSET so only the admin can change it.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073